It depends on whose legality you are following. In terms of internal US legality, it would seem that is all that is required. If you are speaking in terms of international community legality as perhaps viewed by the UN (much harder to define and enforce) then it becomes questionable.

_________________________
[black]-"The further we go and older we grow, the more we know, the less we show."[/black]

When I was a young man, I had such high hopes for the UN - here was an international organization which would advance the cause of world peace, prosperity, public health, education, in short an organization which would help dignify and improve the human condition.

What a disappointment! The UN is now a debating society for representatives of tyrants, which advances the causes of police state kleptocracies rather than democracy.

It is such a scandal that representatives of Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, who chaired the UN Human Rights Commission so venemously criticize the US and Israel while they remain thuderously silent on the genocidal efforts of Arab Muslims in Sudan, Somalia, Chad, Nigeria, etc. etc.

The UN's now notorious OIL for PALACES program is one of the greatest frauds in history, but one which benefitted France and Russia, countries which sold their security council votes to keep the Saddam Hussein regime in place so the money train could keep rolling. Did the UN blink an eye about Saddam Hussein's mass murders of Iraqis or Kurds?

The UN Secretariat bureaucracy is driven by kick backs both monetary and sexual.

The UN is not a light unto the nations. It has become the instrument of the craven which supports oppression all over the world.

So, query: Does the United States require the approval of the UN before the US takes action to effectuate our foreign policies or defend our national security?

There is a body of opinion that the only legitimate use of US force is in giving effect to UN policies. In my opinion, anyone who argues that the US should subject its foreign policy is arguing in favor of giving up our sovereignty and putting our force and wealth at the disposal of a depraved international bureaucracy driven by oppressive fascistic regimes who can only agree on two propositions - 1. The US is evil and should be thwarted at every turn, 2. Israel is evil and should be destroyed.

The UN is a disgrace.

Edited by 2x6spds (09/30/0402:35 PM)

_________________________
Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.

As I said, harder to define and enforce Just making the observation that some people do deem the US actions in Iraq illegal under international law. And, if we look into it strictly from an international legal perspective, there is some basis for that accusation. What I'm not saying is, that we should necessarily follow international law. Or that those laws make sense.

_________________________
[black]-"The further we go and older we grow, the more we know, the less we show."[/black]

The best case against the UN and its "security council" is its lack of representation. Two of the most populous countries, India and Japan, are absent. I can't see how a UN supporter could not understand this simple fact.

And thus, any notion of "international law" is a joke. As much of a joke as the members who don't obey "international law".

So because he lied about that (or was simply misinformed), the rest of his story bears absolutely no relevance, craig?

And the way you condescendingly turn "liberal" into an insult is getting just a little old. Not all liberals think alike, nor do we all think of the Constitution as an opinion piece. But I know it's much easier for you to just lump everyone in together.

I didn't want to post in this thread again, but your condescension is out of line.

I believe that maybe he is more credible than any of us. He is a 20 year man and he is there. We are not. It amazes me that some just dismiss everything he says. I am sure that some of us know so much more than he even though we have not spent a second in his place.

Adam,

If you have not followed this thread to close, you should know the following. If you do not agree with Craig, then you are wrong. Period.

craigsub, you do sound condescending much of the time, but wtf, eh?
Condescension, arrogance and intolerance of differing opinions seems more the province of liberals in America today. If you don't agree with them you must be stupid, ignorant or both. The beginning pages of this thread bear witness to that.
At least the lefties aren't calling us stupid anymore.